Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Counter-Strike

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. It's worth noting that some people have been persuaded to this view as well, somewhat unusually for such debates. -Splash^talk 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Counter-Strike

As much as I like machinima, this one is non notable (it hasn't won awards like RVB, or attracted a spinoff following like Strangerhood) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(Rolls eyes) Didn't this already get nominated for deletion and it was an incredible failure? It's the only notable CS:S Machinima I can assure you. I'm interested in what you think is more notable. --Tykell 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That something more notable doesn't exist does not automatically make it notable.--Drat (Talk) 09:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It doesn't look like there was a previous nomination. Otherwise, this subpage would have already existed. I have mixed feelings about this, so I'm abstaining until I can think about it some more. — TKD::Talk 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a valid article to me. Much like the Red vs Blue article, but needs cleanup. --OrbitOne 07:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per being featured in a major magazine-PC Format. JoshuaZ 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Hahnchen's latest comment. JoshuaZ 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have mixed feelings on this. However, it should be mentioned that Tykell is one of the people behind this. Members of the shows production have linked to this from other articles in the past. In the words of one person from the show, "Admittedly, it WAS a bit of a vanity reference put up by the group to help popularize the series some more". If you need to link from other articles to help popularise the show, then it likely isn't popular enough yet for Wikipedia. See the point about original research here. As for the PC Format appearence, a lot of things appear in magazines. Doesn't necessarily make them notable enough.--Drat (Talk) 08:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hahnchen's comment. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. "I'd like to see a more notable CS:S Machinima" is sort of like me writing a vanity article about the four way stop down the street and then challenging you to find a more notable intersection in my town—it begs the question about whether such things are prima facie notable in the first place. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hope no one minds, but I removed the inflammatory discussion that kept causing the legitimate part of this vote to be reverted. — TKD::Talk 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No more personal insults please, guys. JaysCyYoung 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant, weak delete. Google returns 568 results for +"Over the Counter-Strike" -wikipedia -site:bigpushproductions.com +machinima, but many of those are just forum posts and Wikipedia mirrors. OTCS is somewhat known in the machinima community, but with so few independent hits, it's unlikely that this article, outside of the plot summary, would be really verifiable from reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 02:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Email cameron@intelligence.co.za , the editor of PC Format, and verify it for yourself. Also links to people talking about the inclusion in the magazine: http://tech.vault9.net/forums/index.php?s=699441298ae4aa1480ed296185572d00&showtopic=22263&pid=282160&st=0&#entry282160 ("The 'Over The Counter-Strike' episodes is hilarious!") What else do you want verified? --Tykell 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not disputing that the PC Format bit is unverifiable, because it is verifiable. However, what else is there, besides just the inclusion on a bundled CD? Some random forum posts aren't generally suitable for inclusion here because who posted them isn't verifiable, nor are they likely to be reliable and/or reputable (by Wikipedia standards) with respect to the topic at hand.
Delete - Not a notable piece of Machinima. - Hahnchen 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment - This will probably end up as a no consensus as I'm too late. Being placed onto the the disk of a gaming magazine doesn't make anything inherently notable. If being featured on a coverdisk is notability, then pretty much every single player Quake level is notable. I'm a keen gamer and keep tabs on the Counter-Strike and Half-Life communities, if this was a big machinima launch, I would have heard of it. Look around on Google and there's about 150 unique links for "over the counter-strike", this machinima is hardly covered anywhere, a single line news post here, a forum thread there. There aren't any reliable reviews for this, off the top of my head I can think of a handful of single player Half-Life maps which have garnered more attention than this and still aren't notable enough. And I'm pretty sure whoever wrote this massive article has direct ties to the guys who made the movie, it's a vanity piece. - Hahnchen 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet Another Note - Have a look at their crew. There you'll find the pretty pictures of User:Tykell and User:JaysCyYoung - Hahnchen 04:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I want this to get similar treatment if this AFD gets approved. --Tykell 13:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Then nominate it for deletion. No-one's stopping you. It might be seen as a WP:POINT violation, though.--Drat (Talk) 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hahnchen; WP:VAIN. Sandstein 08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.